A woman who had to pay back the first home owner’s grant after it was revealed she did not live at her Ardeer property in the six months after settlement, has had her appeal quashed.
She was ordered to pay back the $12,000 first home owner’s grant after the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled she did not meet the scheme’s eligibility requirements.
The woman entered into a contract of sale on the Lynch Street property, which included two units, on September 23, 2008.
To be eligible for the grant, the purchaser must live on the property as their main place of residence for at least six months in the first year after settlement. Since July 1 2013, that period has been extended to 12 months.
The VCAT transcript revealed that unit two had been let to a tenant from the time the property was purchased until after the 12- month period had elapsed, and a bond for unit one was lodged with the Residential Tenancies Organisation in February 2009 and was not repaid until August 2009. The woman claimed she and her husband lived in unit two, but after further questioning “the applicant was unsure in her evidence of the times she did occupy the premises”, the VCAT transcript read.
A letter by her legal aid solicitor stated she lived in another home, which she rented for the purposes of having a safe house when her husband was abusive or drinking.
“I do accept that she stayed in the premises from time to time and that she was at the premises catering for her husband and looking after his needs,” VCAT senior member Robert Davis said. “But she did not live in the premises as one normally interprets a principal place of residence.”
VCAT ruled it was not appropriate for her to claim the first home owner’s grant when her husband was living on the premises in her place, and upheld the original decision for her to repay the first home owner’s grant of $7000 and first home owner’s bonus of $5000.
